Marine Protected Areas: Can They Benefit All Fish?
By Austin Horne
thousands of miles during their lives?
1. Protecting vulnerable life stages:
The first, and perhaps most important, consideration is aligning the protected area with the most vulnerable life stages of migratory marine species. The bottom line is, you don’t need a huge MPA to protect migrating marine life.
As an example, since many juvenile sharks have limited spatial ranges during the early stages of their lives, sharks can benefit from MPA designations where juveniles congregate in large numbers. These shallow water, nearshore nursery habitats are exactly the type of marine environment where MPA protections most often exist. Dr. Ricardo Garla documented the benefits of MPA protections for Caribbean reef sharks in 2006, concluding that despite limited areas of influence, Caribbean shark populations benefited from MPA protections during their most vulnerable juvenile stages. Even for smaller fish that don’t move outside of MPA boundaries as often, the same benefits apply. As long as MPAs exist within the spawning range, marine species receive valuable protection during the periods when they are most susceptible to predation. If we can protect endangered marine species during the most critical parts of their lives, we can make a huge impact in marine environments that preserves their natural functionality for years to come.
Connectivity of High-Quality Habitats:
The theory behind connectivity is that even when MPAs are relatively small, they can work in coordination with one another to provide enhanced protection for migratory species by focusing on multiple, separate high-quality habitats. In 2011, José Anadon studied connectivity for four species in the Gulf of California, and noted that high-quality habitats were more than twice as likely to be included in MPAs than low-quality habitats. Because of habitat selection and the distance between habitats, the connectivity in the Gulf of California was effective enough to mimic natural connectivity as it exists in the wild, and it provided an ideal level of protection for all four species. For MPAs that span multiple countries, organizations such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ensure that countries have similar objectives in relation to important species protection.
Data requirements:
Of course, in order to implement all of these strategies, we’re going to need data. Many researchers like Anadon have noted the lack of existing data with regards to MPA effectiveness. In most cases, the funding for extensive monitoring efforts is simply not there. Resource Managers need data not only on fish locations and populations, but also on threats from predators and fishermen. Optimal data analysis would be conducted throughout the process to both guide the MPA’s design and assess its effectiveness once it’s implemented, but greater attention and resource allocation must be given to these critical data efforts.
Management:
One of the biggest hurdles to effective management of MPA is a lack of clear objectives needed to indicate success and the capacity to carry out these goals. Though we use the term “protected”, as mentioned earlier, MPAs may have vastly different laws depending on their home country. In Canada, 160 of the country’s 161 MPAs allowed some form of commercial fishing in 2011. So, while they do offer other forms of protection, many MPAs are still at risk of harmful exploitation through commercial fishing practices. In the U.S. government, fragmentation of responsibility often leads to differing goals between agencies, and the term Marine Protected Area does not necessarily indicate any specific level of protection. In other countries where many MPAs reside, governments do not have the capacity to effectively enforce the laws that protect marine species.
Management deficiencies like these don’t have to be the norm, however, and continuing research shows the way forward in best protecting our marine habitats. MPAs can offer critical protections to migratory and non-migratory marine species alike, and if we demand smart, well-resourced and managed areas like these, we can ensure that our special marine places remain special for years to come.
In the last few decades, Marine Protected Area (MPA) designation has become one of the most widely-used tools that governments have to protect valuable marine habitats. Whereas no officially protected marine areas existed a century ago, today there are over 13,000 MPAs worldwide which cover a little less than 2% of the world’s oceans. Though the laws surrounding each MPA are determined by the local governing body, all MPAs include conservation as a primary focus, and roughly half of all MPAs include “no-take” provisions which prevent any fishing or extraction of native species.
One of the main criticisms of MPAs, however, is their innately limited scope. Many important marine species like tuna travel over large distances of ocean during their lifespan; these distances place them outside of MPA protections for significant portions of their lives, even if they were born in an MPA. As a result, MPAs have historically been thought of as ineffective in protecting highly migratory marine species. Some MPAs have even been designed to ignore these highly-migratory species, and instead focus solely on species that stay within their boundaries. Is this reasoning sound? Are MPA protections nearly worthless for the countless marine species that are able to move beyond their boundaries?
Evidence from many studies suggests otherwise. Given the speed of MPA expansion during the last few decades, scientific research is still determining how and why these protections are valuable. But even in MPAs not specifically designed to protect migratory species, there are numerous examples where they do just that. From endangered sharks to prey species like grouper, MPAs have increased the populations of migratory species that they shouldn’t have. How can such small areas of protection impact species that regularly travel hundreds or thousands of miles during their lives?
1. Protecting vulnerable life stages:
The first, and perhaps most important, consideration is aligning the protected area with the most vulnerable life stages of migratory marine species. The bottom line is, you don’t need a huge MPA to protect migrating marine life.
As an example, since many juvenile sharks have limited spatial ranges during the early stages of their lives, sharks can benefit from MPA designations where juveniles congregate in large numbers. These shallow water, nearshore nursery habitats are exactly the type of marine environment where MPA protections most often exist. Dr. Ricardo Garla documented the benefits of MPA protections for Caribbean reef sharks in 2006, concluding that despite limited areas of influence, Caribbean shark populations benefited from MPA protections during their most vulnerable juvenile stages. Even for smaller fish that don’t move outside of MPA boundaries as often, the same benefits apply. As long as MPAs exist within the spawning range, marine species receive valuable protection during the periods when they are most susceptible to predation. If we can protect endangered marine species during the most critical parts of their lives, we can make a huge impact in marine environments that preserves their natural functionality for years to come.
Connectivity of High-Quality Habitats:
The theory behind connectivity is that even when MPAs are relatively small, they can work in coordination with one another to provide enhanced protection for migratory species by focusing on multiple, separate high-quality habitats. In 2011, José Anadon studied connectivity for four species in the Gulf of California, and noted that high-quality habitats were more than twice as likely to be included in MPAs than low-quality habitats. Because of habitat selection and the distance between habitats, the connectivity in the Gulf of California was effective enough to mimic natural connectivity as it exists in the wild, and it provided an ideal level of protection for all four species. For MPAs that span multiple countries, organizations such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ensure that countries have similar objectives in relation to important species protection.
Data requirements:
Of course, in order to implement all of these strategies, we’re going to need data. Many researchers like Anadon have noted the lack of existing data with regards to MPA effectiveness. In most cases, the funding for extensive monitoring efforts is simply not there. Resource Managers need data not only on fish locations and populations, but also on threats from predators and fishermen. Optimal data analysis would be conducted throughout the process to both guide the MPA’s design and assess its effectiveness once it’s implemented, but greater attention and resource allocation must be given to these critical data efforts.
Management:
One of the biggest hurdles to effective management of MPA is a lack of clear objectives needed to indicate success and the capacity to carry out these goals. Though we use the term “protected”, as mentioned earlier, MPAs may have vastly different laws depending on their home country. In Canada, 160 of the country’s 161 MPAs allowed some form of commercial fishing in 2011. So, while they do offer other forms of protection, many MPAs are still at risk of harmful exploitation through commercial fishing practices. In the U.S. government, fragmentation of responsibility often leads to differing goals between agencies, and the term Marine Protected Area does not necessarily indicate any specific level of protection. In other countries where many MPAs reside, governments do not have the capacity to effectively enforce the laws that protect marine species.
Management deficiencies like these don’t have to be the norm, however, and continuing research shows the way forward in best protecting our marine habitats. MPAs can offer critical protections to migratory and non-migratory marine species alike, and if we demand smart, well-resourced and managed areas like these, we can ensure that our special marine places remain special for years to come.
December 2016 - Conservation Comments
42 - SEVENSEAS